This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE ON THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE MALE DOMINATED S S COLLEGE BASKETBALL By NEFERTITI A. WALKER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERS ITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Nefertiti A. Walker
3 To my dear brother, Thad
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to begin by thanking my adv isor, supervisory committee chair, mentor, and dear friend Dr. Michael Sagas. His enduring confidence in my abilities, encouragement, and guidance has made this dissertation, as well as many of my other accomplishments possible. I would also like to thank my supervisory committee Kyriaki Kaplanidou and Dr. Yong Jae Ko. You all have been an inspiration through your own accomplishments. Each of you has contributed to my growth as a scholar and I will forever be tha nkful for the wisdom you bestowed in me. Next I would like to thank my parents and brothers for their endless belief and faith in me. They raised me to be respectful, loving, and ambitious. Their endless love and encouragement strengthened me through many difficult times over the course of writing this dissertation and my doctoral studies. I would like to thank my best friend and partner. Her endearing love, patience, and understanding provided me with the strength and support needed to complete such a feat Finally, I would like to thank all my friends, family, and colleagues for their support. Thank you all.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLE S ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 An Overview of Women in Sports ................................ ................................ ........... 12 Theo retical Framework: An Introduction to the Multilevel Perspective .................... 14 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 Gaps in the Literature and Previ ous Research ................................ ....................... 19 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 Purpose, Outline of Dissertation, and Conclusion ................................ ................... 21 2 MACRO LEVEL FACTORS ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Collegiate Basketball: What do Men Think? ................................ ........................ 23 ................................ ................................ ....... 24 Review of Pertinent Literature ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Hegemony an d Hegemonic Masculinity ................................ ........................... 28 Institutionalized Practices ................................ ................................ ................. 30 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 31 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 33 Res ults and Discussion ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 .... 35 e Biggest Challenge Would Be Just Getting in ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 37 ........................... 39 Phen .................. 41 3 MESO LEVEL FACTORS ................................ ................................ ....................... 4 5 Factors Influencing the Underrepresentation ................................ ................................ ............ 45
6 Gender Stereotypes ................................ ................................ ......................... 46 Homologous Reproduction ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 52 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 53 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 55 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 57 4 MICRO LEVEL FACTORS ................................ ................................ ..................... 61 Basketball? A Social Cognitive Career Theory Approach ................................ .... 61 Social Cognitive Career Theory ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Self Efficacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 65 Outcome Expectation ................................ ................................ ....................... 66 Choice Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 66 Environmental Factors ................................ ................................ ...................... 66 Vocational Interest ................................ ................................ ............................ 67 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 68 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 68 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 70 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 71 Resu lts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 71 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 73 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 76 Sports: Perceptions of the Most Relevant Stakeholders: Coaches and Players. ................................ ................................ ... 76 Contributions to Literature and Implications ................................ ............................ 79 L imitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 82 APPENDIX: TABLE S, FIGURES AND INSTRUMENTS ................................ ............... 85 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 109
7 LIST OF TABLE S Table page A 1 Study 1 Participant Demographic Description ................................ .................... 87 A 2 Results from Study 2 ................................ ................................ .......................... 88 A 3 Results from Study 3. ................................ ................................ ......................... 89
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page A 1 Social Cognitive Career Theory Model. ................................ .............................. 85 A 2 Pictorial depiction of the multilevel perspective ................................ .................. 85 A 3 Variables tested for their influence in the underrepresentation of women in ................................ ................................ ................... 86
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S D I Division I. The highest competitive level of play for am ateur athletes who participate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. EEOC United Stated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association Title IX Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
10 Abstract of D issertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE O N THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE MALE DOMINATED S S COLLEGE BASKETBALL By Nefertiti A. Walker August 2011 Chair: Michael Sagas Major: Health and Human Performance Currently, women serve in coaching positions for approximately 2 college teams. Meanwhile Acosta & Carpenter, 2010 ). College basketball is a sport in which women and men play by nearly identical rules, play with comparabl e equipment, and similar techniques. Nonetheless, although sought to examine factors contri basketball. The multilevel framework was organized by three distinct, but interconnected studies Study 1 used semi basketball coaches on t his phenomenon. Results suggest that although women are cultural norms basketball. Study 2 used both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the
11 Results suggest that women e xpressed more favorable attitudes toward women previous leaders did not influence attitudes. However, a content analysis of qualitative data suggests both male and female athle tes expressed traditional gender stereotypes suggest there was a significant gender college basketball. In conclusion results suggest that although both women and men coaches and players alike consider women viable women continue to lack a presence in the sport. Societal norms, the hyper masculine intentions by women perpetuate this phenomenon.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION An Overview of Women in Sports sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, 'It's a 73, p. 36). Over three decades later, the stereotyping of women still exists and plays an intricate part in the gender roles that are designated to women (Duehr & Bono, 2006). As it stands women are consistently stereotyped as being less fit for leadership roles than their male counterparts (Embry, Padgett, & Caldwell, 2008). In order to counteract the barriers women may face in the organizations within the United States, lawmakers have developed policies to protect the access of women. One such policy is the enactment of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII was passed to prohibit the discrimination of women in the workplace. As articulated by The United illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Title IX was passed in 1972 to prohibit sex disc rimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding (Rhode, 2008; Swaton, 2010). Title IX was later applied to athletics within educational institutions as well. Although this policy is part of constitutional law, which regulates the accep behavior of Unites States citizens, it is often misunderstood and taken for granted (Rhode, 2008). Likewise, anecdotal data, descriptive statistics, and empirical studies continue to provide evidence that women are immensely underrepresented as leaders in the American workforce and especially sport organizations.
13 As it stands women are often marginalized and afforded far less opportunities in the workplace than their male counterparts. For instance, according to the EEOC, women are approximately 44% of the total workforce, with men being 56% (EEOC, 2009). However, women are only 27% of upper level managers and leaders in the workforce (EEOC, 2009). Sport mirrors society in participation rates of women coaching in sport. In accordance with the NCAA Student a thlete Ethnicity Report 2010 female student athletes account for 42.8% and male student athletes 57.2% of all NCAA student athletes (Zgonc, 2010). Therefore, we would assume that the leadership positions in NCAA sports would reflect similar representation of the sexes. However, this is not the case. Currently, women serve as co aches for 20.9% of all colleg e athletic teams, while men coach 79.1% of all college athletic teams (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). In agreement with the literature, which presumes that th e viable pool of college coaches and leaders include college athletes (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998), anecdotal evidence suggest female athletes have unequal representation in leadership positions in college sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). Although wom en are greatly underrepresented in sports as a whole, women in W omen currently represent less than 3% of the coaching sports and roughly 97 This suggests that more research is needed to explain this phenomenon and propose interventions for positive change. As presented in the data, this poses a dilemma where there is a double stand
14 become deeply entrenched into the issu es that influence the underrepresentation of research will explore from a multilevel per spective the factors that contribute to the lack of women Theoretical Framework: An Introduction to the Multilevel P erspective rts has been examin ed by focusing on how a single factor (e.g., homologous reproduction ) effects the representation of women in sports ( Kane & Stangl, 1991; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991; Staurowsky, 1990 ) In the ea rly 1990s, the most signific ant surge of (Kane & Stangl, 1991; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991; Staurowsky, 1990). Much of this research was at the high school level and used homologous reprod uction, hegemony, and hegemonic masculinity as theoretical frameworks to explain the lack of encompassing. I nevitably, each study left a conceptual void in explaining the underr sparse. Although there has been research using multilevel models to explain the many issu es in society and sport (Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Dixon & Cunningham, 2006; be irresponsible to believe that one study could explain this phenomenon. Therefore, by no mea ns does this research suggest that a single multilevel framework is all
15 encompassing. However, a multilevel perspective does attempt to leave very little remaining reasoning for the phenomenon. In viewing sports from a sociological lens, race and gender is sues have paralleling similarities. By this I mean, the underrepresentation of racial minorities and the underrepresentation of women in sports can be explained using very similar frameworks, theoretical perspectives, and ideologies. Thus, the theoretical framework used in this study is modeled after multilevel frameworks used to describe the role of racial inequities in sport (Cunningham, 2010), the multilevel, multi model framework described by Chafetz (1990) to describe coercive structures of gender ineq uities, and previous studies relating sports in a multilevel framework (Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Dixon & Cunningham, 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Cunningham (2010) provides a multilevel framework for understanding the underrepresentation of African Ame ricans as head coaches of college athletics. Through an in depth explanation of which factors are influential at each level, Cunningham (2010) identified how factors interact within and between the macro, meso, and micro levels of the multilevel model. Ove rall, Cunningham (2010) conceptualizes how the underrepresentation of African American coaches influence and is influenced by the multilevel organizational structure of college sports. Chafetz (1990) multilevel perspective suggests that there are four coer cive structural levels of gender inequity in the workplace (i.e., macro, meso, micro, and personal). T hese four levels are sometimes e mbedded within each other. Nonetheless, they all work in contributing to both the Chafetz (1990) and Cunningham (2010) multilevel models, this research aims to conceptualize the
16 perspective. Thereby, the purpose of this research is to propose and test a multilevel model perspective which models an inclusive and interacting understanding of factors college basketball. Macro level concepts that can influence the underreprese ntation of women in the include but are not limited to, hegemonic masculinity, institutionalized practices, and gender ideology. Macro level influences can be defined as the level at which percept ions and ideologies of a socio cultural group influence the behaviors of an organization operating within that group basketball macro level factors are broad ideologies that influence the biases, norms, areas of American politics and culture, however, have very specific consequences in the realm of sport (Anderson, 2008). Macro level factor s influence expectations and perceptions of what coaches should embody (Coakley, 2010). Meso level concepts that may influence the underrepresentation of women in homologous rep roduction. Unlike macro level factors, meso level factors are very specific to the particular organization of sports. For instance, although stereotypes exist in just about every part of societal perceptions, stereotypes for women in sport, specifically me of sport (McCabe, 2007; 2008). Findings at the meso level are expected to be specific
17 level factors, in which find ings tend to mirror gender dynamics within American culture and society as a whole (Coakley, 2010). Lastly, micro level factors that likely influence the underrepresentation of women in le vel factors are very different from macro level and meso level factors in that they directly influence the individual (Cunningham & Sagas, 2008), as oppose to the organization or society as a whole. In this study, micro level factors will include Chafetz ( 1990) personal factors. The focus is on i ntention related variables which explain factors that influence the intentions asketball and the intentions of Summary The multilevel model perspective is an inclusive model for depicting the multiple entities, which are embedded within sport organizations, and how these multiple entities interact amongst three levels of conceptualization. Macro level factors are based on how an organization is perceived by society. Macro level factors influence the culture of an organization, but have tenets based on societal views of gender ideology. Meso level factors are unique to a particular organization. They are influenced by the perceptions of the individuals within that organization, but have little value outside the realm of sports. Lastly, micro level factors are unique to the individual and influence decisions made by each individual within the organization. Micro level factors are often linked to socio psychological theory, but outcomes directly influence whether
18 The purpose o f applying the multilevel model perspective to the Statement of the Problem Currently le aders and scholars of sport management consider the underrepresentation of women in sports a serious socio cultural problem (Cunningham, 2008; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). The topic of women in the male dominated sport workplace is a relevant topic because know exists, but rarely consider an issue worthy of investigation. Although, the presence 3%, there is very little talk of this as a problem in sports (Acost a & Carpenter, 2010). As it stands, although women make up roughly half of the participants in college sports, women are a meager 28% of the coaching employees in college sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). Even more astonishing is that even though men rout inely coach women sports, with over 50% of 3% of women predominately in non team s ports, which according to Kane and Stangl (1991) would be considered less prestigious than team sports. Women have traditionally coached less than 0 .04% of team sports (Kane & Stangl, 1991). Overall women have been and stil l remain significantly underrepresented in & Carpenter, 2010). The overall underrepresentation of women poses a sig nificant problem of disparate access of girls and women finishing their participatory eligibility. Women are at a disadv antage, with men having more than 3 times the opportunities to get a coaching position in sports
19 after college compared to his female counterpart. The underrepresentation of women in different aspects of college sport has been discussed immensely in the sp ort management literature. Literature suggesting explanations for the underrepresentation of women in sports are, but not limited to, intention related constructs (Sagas, Cunningham, & Pastore, 2006), gender role attitudes and gender stereotypes (Burton, B arr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009), homologous reproduction (Kane & Stangl, 1991; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991), and hegemony and hegemonic masculinity (Norman, 2010; Whisenant, 2002). However, when searching for answers to why there exist s an enorm specifically, the literature has been sparse. Gaps in the Literature and Previous Research instrumental to the d evelopment and progression of literature on the Walker, Bopp, and Sagas (2011) and Walker and Bopp (2011) studies that have investigated the lack of women o the high school level. Therefore, the first major gap in the literature that this study looks to address is the lack of literature on research aims to address is th e introduction of a holistic, multilevel perspective to To date theoretical framework of hegemony and homologous reproductio n. Sociologically, (1971) hegemony theory suggests that hegemony
20 is taking place when the unfair treatment of one group over another is acce pted by society as commonsense, and the disenfranchised group willingly and consciously accepts their place in society (Norman, 2010; Whisenant, 2002). Overall hegemony and hegemonic masculinity are macro level concepts that explain the interactions of dis having a preference in hiring employees who are most like themselves (Kanter, 1977). In o ther words, homologous reproduction suggests that men are inclined to hire men, and likewise, women are inclined to hire women. However, considering there are significantly more men in positions of leadership, if this homologous reproduction cycle perpetua tes itself, then women will continue to be underrepresented. The presence of homologous reproduction fits into the meso level perspective, as a concept that is best seen within an organizational level as oppose to a societal level. Although previous frame as hegemony, hegemonic masculinity, and homologous reproduction offer valid paint a holistic picture of this pheno menon. Therefore, this research adopts a multilevel perspective, in hopes of offering an inclusive and more encompassing framework of the Significance of the Study The significance of this research is intimately tied to the gaps mentioned above. To date, there has been little ( Walker, Bopp, & Sagas, 2011 ). This study is purposeful and significant to the sport literature by providing a holistic multi level perspective to the lack of women coaching in
21 the sport workplace of the 20 th century has focused on women gaining market share of Now that women have increased proportion and are making gains in leadership roles in s research aims to shift the focus to and untouchable for female leaders. The signifi cance of this research lies in its role as a stimulus to scholarly research in this particular area and reflection in the role of women Purpose, Outline of Dissertation, and Conclusion The purpose of this dissertation is to formul ate and test an inclusive multi level framework for explaining the underrepresentation of wome By no means, does this research intend to be exhaustive of all factors that influence the does intend to answer questions and act as a pertinent piece of literature which employs a multilevel perspective to explaining the many dimensions which influence gender dynamics in This research is guided by a very general, but in the realm of sport, still unique and specific research question which states: Applying a multilevel perspective to examining the phenomenon, w hat are the underlying factors that contribute to the nding that this research question is very broad in scope, however specific in realm of study (e.g.,
22 individual study will examine very specific research questions, which wil l as a whole, formulate evidence to informing the overall research question of this dissertation. Following a 3 manuscript format, this dissertation contain s three individual studies. Study one describe s macro level factors, which influence the underrepres entation of took a phenomenological approach to exploring how a culture of hegemonic masculinity may hinder women from two describe s meso level factors that may influence the underrepresentation of women in d a mix ed methods approach to examine the women were used with a random selection of players, to confirm results found in the quantitative data analysis. The third and final study examine d micro level factors or individual factors that may have an influe used social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) to model factors that l. Gender differences and relational influences of the multilevel factors were examined. Each manuscript serve s as an empirical exa mple of each level of the multi level framework. In conclusion, the aim of this dissertation is to address the need for resear ch perspective which serves to expand previous frameworks used in exploring this phenomenon.
23 CHAPTER 2 MACRO LEVEL FACTORS Hegemonic Masculinity and the Institutionalized Collegiate Basketball: What do Men T hink? Sport is the most widely accepted preserve for male domination and masculinity (Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002). The enactment of Title IX in 1972 accomplished monumental strides in inc reasing the opportunities for women to participate in sport. However, little has been done to increase the representation of women as leaders in sport (Cunningham & Sagas, 2008). Although, in most cases representation of women as participants in sport at t he collegiate level hovers somewhere around 50%, women as employees at the same level are a meager 27 28 % (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). This discrepancy in opportunities for female athletes to pursue jobs in an area where they have invested time and a huge part of their life poses the dilemma of what are female athletes to do with the social capital that they have accumulated. Research has suggested that the pool of candidates for sport related positions should likely be those who have accumulated capital in sports such as former athletes (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). Therefore, this research investigates whether the social capital, knowledge, and experiences of women are being marginalized as less worthy than their male counterparts? The purpose of this st udy is two fold. First, through in depth, semi s college basketball. Second, explore ce of hegemonic basketball.
24 A review of Walker and Bopp (2011) This study builds on the work of Walker and Bopp (2011) which explores the ex college basketball, Walker and Bopp (2011) used a phenomenological lens to explore the essence of this phenomenon. Through in d epth interviews, they employed an interpretive perspective to their interactions with the participants and data. Moustakas (1994) methods for phenomenological analysis were applied to dissect the data and analyze results. Thus, the following overarching th emes were suggested from Walker research: Double standards, exclusive social networks, and organizational fit issues. These three themes are composed of elements, which are very specific to the individual experiences of the women coaching organizational fit, over compensation, and coaching intentions. The glass wall refers to the double standard that men boast more opportunity and acc ess to coaching positions in sport than women. As supported descriptively by Acosta and Carpenter (2010) men dominate the coaching proportionality in college sports. Since sports remain a segregated domain (Anderson, 2009) it would make logical sense if me teams, while men serve a teams (Zgonc, 2010). Thus, as suggested by Walker and Bopp ( 2011 ), a glass wall
25 seems evident. The following statement exemplifies this overwhelming sense of a glass wall: Men have different choices. collegiate level, the only opportunities you have are to coach are at ou can just go over to t he other side. (Walker & Bopp, 2011, p.56) is the strong existence of an old boys network. Sport management literature is robust with research, which sugg ests the existence of an exclusive old boys club in sports (Kane & Stangle, 1991; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991; Theberge, 1993; Walker et al., 2011). Although, much of the research on the presence of an old boy s club may be dated, Walker and Bopp (2011) results discuss that this subject still has relevance. The results from their study provide quotes of participants blatantly stating, hiring a female to be a co 56 ). Consequently, Walker and Bopp (2011) show that not only does this exclusive network of men who hire women are aware that this is a prominent barrier and hindrance in their access to organizational fit and overcompensation, all of which are intricately related. Women who ege basketball felt that it was necessary to prove to the p. 58) they still maintained that they worked harder to
26 over compensate for being a women and to gain respect from the players and staff. ketball affect the Walker and Bopp (2011) felt as though women may have fewer intentions to coach because they Walker & Bopp, 2011 p. 59 ). Overt discrimination in the reviewing of re sumes and a preference towards male candidates were all responses articulated by the participants as reasons In summary, Walker and Bopp (2011) set the precedent for exploration into the perceptions of wo Walker and Bopp (2011) explored off of Walker and B opp (2011) college basketball in hopes of adding to the literature, which explains this phenomenon from another perspective. Through semi structured interviews of men who are the potential colleagues, de cision college basketball, as well as the presence of a culture deeply rooted in hegemonic masculinity, and the exclusi on of women.
27 Review of Pertinent Literature Social ideology can be described as attitudes and beliefs that are formed by a society as norms, which are to be the guiding rules by those within the society (Coakley, 2010; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Gender i deology is based on the notion that society has very specific roles, which they deem fit for women and men (Coakley, 2010). Together, gender ideology and social ideology form norms, which are the basis rau, 2002). In sports, gender 2008, p.7). Therefore, maleness is the norm and seen as superior to femininity. This idea that maleness is the superior trait for sport le adership leads to women being sports. basketball teams, while only serving as the head coa basketball teams (Zgonc, 2010). Likewise, women are vastly underrepresented as descriptive statistics provide evidence for vast proportionality dif ferences of gender in basketball. As Whisenant et al. (2002) has suggested hegemonic masculinity exists within college
28 ollege basketball that make it such an exclusive male domain. Hegemony and Hegemonic Masculinity Gramsci first coined the term hegemony in 1971. Gramsci (1971) used hegemony to describe the political and economic strife in Europe during this period. Over t he years many researchers of gender have adopted hegemony theory due to its ability to explain and give reason to gender inequity. Hegemony theory states that hegemony exists when society accepts the ruling of a group over another as commonsense and the in dividuals being treated unfairly consciously and knowingly accept s their role in society (Whisenant et al., 2002). Whisenant et al. (2002) uses hegemonic masculinity as a framework for understanding how gender plays a role in the advancement of athletic a dministrators. After surveying athletic administrators from NCAA institutions Whisenant et al. (2002) concluded that hegemonic masculinity is present within athletic administration at the college sports level. Overall men had significantly higher success ratios than women in their job performance However women had significantly higher success ratios than men at the lower level divisions of the NCAA (i.e., division II and division III). Although the presence of women in powerful positions at the lower leve ls of NCAA institutions may be a sign of hope, men still dominate the powerful NCAA division I positions. Likewise, hegemonic masculinity as a cultural norm seems to be deeply embedded within NCAA sports. Women in sports are routinely treated as second cl ass individuals (Norman, of its position of dominance. In many cases society, men, and even women are
29 accepting of this hierarchical positioning of women in sports as bein g valued less than their male counterparts. Connell (1987) and Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) are seminal pieces of literature in which the term hegemony is applied to gender relations. Both contest that societal views of masculinity and the idea of wome participants on the playground (Bird, 1996). Thus, the socialization o f women as inferior beings in the world of sports happens before any type of interaction with coaches. Therefore, from a very young age, society reinforces male dominance in sports, ority, and the acceptance as superior leaders and participants of sports. Women help perpetuate this cycle by accepting the structural and social role as subordinates in sports (Whisenant, 2008). The linkage between the role of hegemonic masculinity and so cietal perceptions e t al. ( 2011 ). This study addresses how traditional gender role attitudes and a lack of congruence between being ic encouragement in study suggest that although society as a whole is accepting and content with the non there was still underlying feelings of inequality and unfairness ( Walker et al., 2011 ). Likewise, Walker and Bopp (2011) provided evidence, which suggest that although women may have nce in the
30 system, their experiences were very positive and similar to their experiences in zed this notion further. Institutionalized Practices In line with the notion of hegemonic masculinity are social dominance theory and systems justification theory. Simi lar to hegemonic masculinity, system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and social dominance theory (Sidanius, Levin, Frederico, & Pratto, 2001) both suggest that ideologies and stereotypes form the way institutions and individuals organize, such t hat inequalities are perpetuated over time and spawn what becomes accep norms (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). More specifically, the commonality between these three theories (i.e., hegemonic masculinity, system justification theory, and social dominance theo ry) is the understanding that exists between the disenfranchised group (i.e., female coaches) and the dominant group (i.e., male coaches). This mutual understanding is where both men and women acknowledge that the dominant group has more power, control, an d access, but neither group is willing to suffer the negative consequences of speaking out against the status quo. For instance, Walker et al. (2011) provide evidence of this contradictory attitude in their study, suggesting optimism towards women coaching no significant attempt towards changing the status quo. The majority of the participants college basketball and felt a qualified woman woul d be a capable candidate who fit well
31 recommending a qualified female applicant for hiring, participants rated the female applicants lower than the male applicants, despite the female I ndividuals understood that women are viable and competent candidates, but they did not want to go against the organizational norm of hiring men for basketball positions. Thus, after years of perpetuating these gender ideologies and norms, women continue to be in a disadvantaged position in the acquisition of coaching Methodology Participants As suggested by Do most inclusive workplace dynamics, which result from a hegemonic culture (p. 646). Thus the sample of participants for this study is formed from purposi basketball. The purpose of this sample is twofold. First, the goal is to identify what l make it such a gender exclusive domain. Therefore, there is a basketball and have been the majority of their car eers. Secondly, I want to identify basketball in its acceptance and attractiveness to women. Therefore, we need to explore those few men who have had the experiences of coach
32 The first three participants were chosen from a large NCAA division I university in the southeastern part of the United States. After choosing the first few participants based on criterion sampling methods (i .e., male, has coached or is currently coaching basketball coach) the rest of the sample was chosen based upon criterion and snowball sampling methods. Both criterion and snowball s ampling methods were applied by asking the first few participants, who were chosen based on the criterion sampling methods mentioned above, to identify anyone else they may know who fits the criteria. This participant referral continued until the data beca me saturated and the interviewing process ended (for further sampling methods see e.g., Lee & Koro Ljungberg, 2007; Walker & Bopp, 2011 ) In order to avoid biases based on certain cultures of the United States (e.g., southern culture), or certain ultra com petitive athletic conferences (e.g., Southeastern Conference) we asked participants to refer potential new participants from a different conference and region of the United States. A total of eight participants were sampled. Racially, two participants iden tified as African American/Black, while six identified as White All participants identified as being American. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 61 years old. Geographically, participants have lived and coached in the northeast (e.g., Massachusetts, N ew York, and Connecticut), the southeast (e.g., Florida), west coast (e.g., Arizona), and the central regions of the United States (e.g., Colorado). Therefore, participants were much embedded in American sport cultural norms that may have existed in all pa rts of the country. Efforts to include participants from a wide range of geographical experience as well as age w ere done to reduce any
33 bias that may exist within certain age groups or regions of the United States. Table 2 1 provides a list of participant s, as well as individual demographics. Data C ollection The data collection process consisted of semi structured interviews. The format of the interview began with the interview guide. The interview guide consists of an introduction of the study, questions which guided the interview, and concluding comments from both the interviewer and interviewee. Interview questions are based on the exploratory nature of a phenomenological study (Lee & Koro Ljungberg, 2007; Moustakas, 1994), previous research on women coa & Bopp, 2011), and the theoretical tenets of hegemony and hegemonic masculinity. (Appendix A) The duration of each interview was from about 47 minutes to the longest being 78 minutes long. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed immediately following the interview. Data Analysis NVIVO 8 was used in analyzing the data. Specifically NV IVO 8 increased reliability in the organization of data into nodes (i.e., themes) and the identification of specific quotes. In an effort to remain consistent with previous qualitative work exploring women p, 2011), this study use d a phenomenological approach to analyzing the data. In accordance with Crotty (1998), phenomenology is a lens used to explore the essence of those most closely involved. In intimately involved with the Also, by using a phenomenological approach, we allow for easy comparison to the work
34 of Walker and Bopp (2011). Specifically, we will adhere to Mo ustakas (1994) methods for analyzing phenomenological data which is a modification of the methods of analysis suggested by Stevick (1971), Colaizzi (1973), and Keen (1975). We will use the exact steps adapted and adopted from Moustakas (1994) and used by W alker and Bopp (2011). Each interview was first transcribed. Next the data underwent the following process: 1) listing and preliminary grouping, 2) reduction and elimination, 3) clustering and thematizing invariant constituents, 4) final identification of invariant constituents and themes by application (validation), 5) construction of individual textural description of the experience for each participant (including verbatim examples from the transcribed interview), 6) construction of individual structural descriptions of the experience based on individual textual descriptions, 7) composition of a textual structural compi lation of a composite depiction of the meanings and essence of the phenomenon. (p. 55 ) This method for data analysis has been successfully applied to qualitative data in many fields (Creswell, 1998; Lee & Koro Ljungberg, 2007; Moustakas, 1994; Walker & Bop p, 2011 ). The primary advantage to this method of data analysis is that the so that the essence of the phenomenon surfaces and is easily acknowledged (Moustakas, 1994; Walker & Bopp, 2011 ). Invariant constituents and themes were member checked by an outside researcher familiar with the topic and literature. The outside researcher checked to ensure themes and the verbatim quotes that followed each theme were accurately categorized and interpreted. O nly those themes and verbatim examples that were agreed upon were used in the results section.
35 Results and Discussion The results of this data sug college basketball, which is acknowledge by most participants as being hyper masculine, gender exclusive, and resistant to change. T he preceding sections provide the major themes that were emerged fro m the data, verbatim quotes from participants which reaffirm the meaning of each theme, and contextual discussion on how thematic Masculinity and Culture: sketball is a Masculine C college basketball is a major hindrance to men accepting women into their culture. One participant in particular described the influence of basketball below. In the locker room, on the floor, and in coaches players relationships masculinity is often toughness, the idea of toughness, the idea of being a man, playing like a man. Those things are all prominent in coll ege basketball and then on coaching staffs there is a locker room mentality environment that exists within the dynamics of a coaching staff. I have been to three different places and it has existed like that at all three places. In my experience it has bee n a consistent thing, so to bring a woman into that type of masculine environment would be uncomfor for a lot of men. Men would not want to do it because it is an old boys club to be honest and bringing a woman into that would be a challenge. The notion t participant, who suggest s that this masculine environment is evident in staff meetings and locker room conversations. I have been in meetings before where there are conversations that would be different if a woman was in the room. I have even been on the practice floor where things that were said by a head or assistant coach, or the terminology used to express signs of weakness would be different if a woman was in present because the p resent language used would be offensive to women. I think this environment is a heavily masculine based environment.
36 In accordance with the above statement, another participant basketball] definitely a culture of manliness and probably some jokes that would affect behavior which could make men feel restric ted and awkward in their job, because if we studies of masculinity (Connell, 1987). from the very beginning of boy college basketball has become so established as a male domain that women are seen as foreign intruders on the current cult ural norms. Participants expressed that if women were present they would change their language and terminology because much of what they currently use would be offensive towards women. The current environment and welcoming to women and as stated before, which women would most likely not feel comfor entering unless the men within changed their way. Therefore, the current data and participant quotes suggest that the masculine women as coaches. As suggested by A nderson (2008) this exclusion of women from exclusive culture and reinforces the masculine hegemonic culture of sport.
37 Access and Opportunity: D A research has shown that women may face barriers that college basketball coaching positions (Walker & Bopp, 2011). Participants in this study also b elieved that one of the most difficult barriers the biggest challenge is a woman being on the staff or being with the players, I think the has been relevant to other minorities such as African American coaches in NCAA surprise many college basketball], it would have to be a special individual that could rise above the a same accord as the previously mentioned statements, when asked whether access coached bot d to recount a
38 situatio n when the culture of his staff in particular, led to inappropriate comments about a fellow staff member. some very derogatory statements about women. There were four to five me n in the room, we were doing some scouting and one of the female coaches poked her head in the room. After she left they closed the door and had something to say about her Those comments were of the sexual nature, nothing violent or anything, just about h ow they would not mind be ing with her in a sexual manner. masculine, male exclusive, and as the statement above suggest, a organization where heterosexual commentary is environment where masculinity and masculine characteristics are praised as the norm and the way all members should behave (Anderson, 2009; Connell, 1995). Therefore, etball seems to be one in which women would not only feel unwelcomed, but if women were to enter into this culture in its current state, the culture would have to change. When participants were asked whether women were unwelcomed because of their knowledge of the game, experiences or other competencies related to coaching, all of eight participants agreed that this wa s not the case. One participant means that there are less opportunities for women to see other women coaching in basketball for over 15 years, and is a minority believes that the two minorities have and they are just doing what they
39 to the struggles African Americans have had in coaching only takes one and eventually when I look at any type of social justice, civil rights in participant was hopeful that just as African American s h a ve had a small, yet significant sketball, one day women too will have a presence and increase in access and opportunities. f Although participant s as whole felt as though women may suffer from differential Participants felt as though societal gender roles were unchangeable, as one participant put it: I would say that societal gender roles are established. If you look at what a coach nd if you ask people what a coach does, most of the traits or characteristics that they would say, are those things related to the male gender in terms of social norms. on is to it or men as coaches in general was normal and natural. Therefore, preference for men coaching
40 s uggested in Walker and Bopp (2011) They too found that participants, wh o were all women, felt as though society was more welcoming and accepting of men as coaches. Walker and Bopp (2011) also found that most participants felt as though the lack of women c s are ). Both Walker and Bopp (2011) and this current study portray undertones of understanding that this inequity exists, but unsure as to whether change should take place. One participant, For women there are st ereotypes and boundaries that will have to be broken players getting in her face and the confrontations that happen off the court behind the scenes with the players. A lot of peopl e think of women as having a more passive nature about them and they are seen as less aggressive. This perception would be a major barrier to women gaining access to coaching in Previous research have suggested that gender stereo types have influenced perceptions of what gender should or should not occupy collegiate sport positions (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009). Likewise, participants of this study suggest that society has a perceived bias for men having a more n atural rol e as a leader people would agree on the characteristics that are necessary for a good manager (Duehr & Bono, 2006), participants in this study too and it is just easier to accept [men
41 a boys club because the sport is male dominated industry. The strong male dominance comes with social pressures of being a society wh participants felt that the risks of hiring a woman in that culture would bring about strong social and career threatening repercussions. Overall participants felt as though society and social norms play a large role in basketball. They felt that gender roles and stereotypes were against women and although they agreed that inequity did exist, one participant summed of many of their real problem; I just perceive it as America. Phenomenon E The last major theme that emerged from the data was the phenomenon like characteristics that this topic exemplif ies. Most participants mentioned that in discussing this topic with their peers, most of their colleagues admitted to the fact they never even college basketball is not a releva even think about because it doesn A lthough these men have coached with women at some point in their careers, they still consider this topic unimportant because it does not have any relevance in their current positions. As one participant explained, It is of a sudden a flurry of challenges would enter tha
42 be way more reasons why not to hire her than to hire her. Chances are, if she is s et who does present the same r isk and challenges as she would. why change. Part icipants also believed that the perceived lack of interest by women was also a phenomenon in itself. My question is how many ladies even exists right now who would want to be basketball? Until you are exposed to the fact that the possibility exists, i t does not register as an opportunity. I remember when I was a kid growing up as a African American boy, I did not think black people could be positive characters on television. I did not think blacks could be doctors and lawyers until I watched the Cosby Show and realized black people can be lawyers, doctors, and actors. I role. basketbal same domain. I think the main issue [barriers to women] is that it has rarely happened before and I thin k so many things in the environment is regenerative. So from generation to generation you learn the norms within the organization wherever you are. There is a set of norms that exists in the coaching profession that has existed for a long time. The norms h ave evolved in some ways, but in most ways even dawn on most coaches. ound similar results ( Walker & Bopp, 2011 ; Walker, Bopp, & Sagas, 2011 ). Both studies found that this issue is indeed a phenomenon due to the rarity of it presence, the lack of
43 research on the topic, and an overall acknowledgement and acceptance of the lac k of Overall these results support the theoretical tenets of hegemonic masculinity and hegemony. As suggested in Walker and Bopp (2011) and well as the first theme of this study, women are aware that they are being disa dvantaged by the male exclusive and college basketball over their female counterparts. How ever, both men and women basketball. This dynamic is the very root of hegemonic masculinity and has been examined throughout the history of hegemony in political and economi cal situations (Gramsci, 1971). Further, the consent of women in this phenomenon can be examined through the lens of social dominance theory (Sidanius et al., 2001) and system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Both women and men coaches of coll ege basketball are entrenched in an institution where they build different organizations (e.g., WBCA or for their particular sports. Although women have formed a strong al liance through the themselves a false sense of power in basketball or sports as a whole. The WBCA does er, the
44 organizations, as long as the power and proportions continue to favor those in powe r, men. This system, in which the institutional norms of NCAA college basketball is for sport an as Geno Auriema, continue to be an example that men are welcomed and can succeed in basketball as a whole, regardless of the gender of the sport. Men in this study acknowledg ed the obvious double standards, but questioned whether women had Walker and Bopp (2011) any person would be discouraged to go against organizational norms that support t hem in their current position. Overall the results of this study suggest the institutional and systems justification beliefs (e.g., norms), form system justification systems, which perpetuate the current state of women in college basketball. The questionin college basketball will be addressed in chapter 4 (e.g., study 3). However, now that we have reviewed the perceptions of both men and women coaches towards women basketball, the next stakeholder to be examined are the players. Besides coaches, players are the most invested stakeholders in college basketball. Therefore, chapter 3 (e.g study 2) will examine the at
45 CHAPTER 3 MESO LEVEL FACTORS olle giate oice Sinc e the enactment of Title IX in 1972, men have dominated the leadership currently women coach onl 3%. This unequal representation sends a very strong message to those looking to pursue coaching careers in college sports: men coach sports and women coach human and social capital play in the success of administrators. Results of this study suggest that women have less return on their social c apital than their male counterparts. Returns usually come in the form of promotions, which in the college coaching profession means more opportunities to become head coaches and coach elite Division I teams. According to Cunningham, Sagas, and Ashley (2003 ) playing experience could represent the most significant and powerful dimension of human capital. Although women and men participate in collegiate sports at a nearly equal rate, and have the same opportunities to gain human capital (i.e., playing experien ce) men advance in the coaching ranks more frequently than women. In line with the belief throughout sport management literature that athletes represent the pool of candidates for coaching positions (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998), both male and female athl etes should have Considering women are objectively, just as equal as men as potential candidates for
46 coaching positions in college sports, why then, do men dominate the college spo rts workplace? The purpose of this study is to identify and explore meso level factors, which contribute to the underrepresentation of women in tudent athletes possess the highes t level of social capital in becoming a college ba sketball coach, second only to pr ofessional athletes and current coaches. Therefore, this study will explore the perceptions of student athletes. Also, student athletes have yet to be vious work Walker & Bopp, 2011 ), and students (i.e., students who are neither a student athlete nor coach ; Walker et al., 2011 ). However, considering student athletes are intimately connected to their coaches, moving the literature on this phenomenon. By administering both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study seeks to identify gender stereotypes, the influence of homologous reproduction, and perceptions of college basketball players toward women Gender S tereotypes Stereotypes have been id ent ified as meso level factors which influence the underrepresentation of minority groups (Cunningham, 2010; Cunningham & Sagas, 2007). Some sport management researchers imply that gender stereotypes in sports mirror societal stereotypes such as those of mana gers (Coakley, 2010; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Stereotypes and gender roles are inherently intertwined in that gender roles are typically based on stereotypes as to how women and men should
47 behave and perform. Generally speaking, in management, women a re stereotyped as possessing more expressive and communal traits, whereas men are stereotyped as being more instrumental and agentic. Embry, Padgett, and Caldwell (2008) investigated the presence of managerial stereotypes by using vignettes. Vignettes were made to either express more communal traits, representing female managers or agentic traits which stated that participants would match the communal vignette to the female lea der and the agentic vignette to the male leader. Embry et al. (2008) also found that overall, participants were biased in that 70% of participants, assumed the leader to be male regardless of the whether the vignettes expressed communal or agetic traits. T hese results support the notion that in general, gendered stereotypes depict women as less likely to be a leader or manager than men. In the sport setting, Senior Women Administrators (SWAs) were surveyed in an effort to measure their inclusion in decisio n making roles and tasks (Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008). SWAs are considered at most institutions to be the senior most female administrator. Therefore, if any women within an athletic department would be making important managerial decisi ons, it would be the SWA, unless there was a woman in the role of athletic director, associate athletic director, or assistant athletic director. In assessing the decision making task of SWAs, Grappendorf et al. (2008) found that SWAs were excluded from ma ny agentic like responsibilities such as decision this phenomenon through the framework of gender role congruity which suggest that
48 the lack of congruence between being female and being an administrator leads to women having a senior leadership title, but still not participating in senior administrator type of tasks (Eagly & Karau, 2002). E agly (2007) and Eagly and Karau (2002) suggest that society and organizations feel uncomfor when women are placed in leadership roles that do not align with traditional roles (i.e., communal traits) possessed by women. So although SWAs may have the title, which suggest that they are high level administrators, the lack of congruity between being a female and being a leader, relegates them to less decision making roles, even when in a decision making position. Gender stereotypes in the field of sport are not isolated to women working in high level administration positions. Burton, Barr, Fink, and Bruening (2009) investigated the gender stereotyping of other administration positions in college sports. The r esearchers chose three administrative positions in coll ege sports: one which is typically overrepresented by men (e.g., athletic director), one typically overrepresented by women (e.g., life skills coordinator), and one equally represented by both men and women (e.g., compliance coordinator) and examined the g ender typing of these positions. Results indicate that although masculine traits were most closely related to the position of athletic director; feminine traits were equally pertinent to all three positions (Burton et al., 2009). Thereby, although feminine traits are deemed necessary for the athletic director position, women continue to be underrepresented as athletic directors. Researchers concluded that women may be vastly underrepresented as athletic directors, even though results suggest feminine traits are important because of the overwhelming culture of masculine hegemony in sport (Burton et al., 2009; Whisenant, 2008).
49 Similar to basketball face similar gender stereotyping. Walker et al. (2011) examined the role of gender role attitude and gender role congruity in the evaluating of candidates for a participants were optimistic that women are capable of coa basketball, women were recommended for hire significantly less than their equally qualified or less qualified male counterparts ( Walker et al., 2011 ). In assessing gender role attitude, results provide evidence of gender stereotyping i n some of the comments gathered from the qualitative analysis of the data. Participants made comments such as Walker et a l., 2011 p. 168 ). This statement is an example of how traditional gender role attitude and stereotypes of masculinity in sport serve as a barrier to the acceptance of women as coaches and y have gender stereotypes serving as barriers, but the lack in physical representation of women in level factor, which influences the lack Research Question 1: Do gender stereotypes play a role in college basketball Homologous R eproduction Homologous reproduction was first coined in organizational literature for the application to organizational behavior (Kanter, 1977). Kanter (1977) suggest that power, opportunity, and proportion influences the hiring processes in many business based organizations. Power is the idea that one holds an influential position in their respective
50 organization (Kanter, 1977). An influential position is one in which they have influence over major financial, operational, and managerial decisions within the organization. Power can also mean the influence over media, society, and significant others within a field. In college sports a nd for the purpose of this study, positions of power are athletic directors, high level administrators and coaches. Opportunity refers to the possibility that one can advance to top level leadership positions within their organization. Opportunity is the r ealistic chance that with all else being equal, an individual has just as equal of chances as anyone else to advance in their careers (Kanter, 1977). In college sports and in reference to the focus of this paper, opportunity can be operationalized as the c hance for a woman to progress to higher ranks in coaching, the last construct associated with homologous reproduction is proportion. Proportion is the ratio of peop organization (Stangl & Kane, 1991). In the case of collegiate sports, proportion is the ratio of male to female head coaches in NCAA Division I sport. Kanter (1977) suggests that the propo rtion of certain individuals in powerful positions will influence the opportunities to under proportioned groups in the hiring process. In reference to college sports, the proportion of men in powerful positions such as athletic directors will negatively i nfluence the opportunities for women because men will have a bias to hire other men for powerful positions such as athletic director or head coach. Kane and Stangl (1991) investigated the under sports. By means of An alysis of Variance (ANOVA) and c hi square, archival data was descriptively analyzed. Findings suggest that not only was homologous reproduction
51 (Kane & Stangl, 1991). To further explain, the researchers concluded that since, women only 0 swimming), women were marginalized and tokenized (Kane & Stangl, 1991). Women coaching men were tokenized because the percentage was just a token or minute number of women and marginalized to coach spo rts that were deemed less important financially, socially and by the media. This marginalization and tokenism contributes to the occupational segregation of women in sports (Kane & Stangl, 1991). This study was one of the first and remains one of the few s tudies to directly measure women coaching Stangl and Kane (1991) explored the decreased representation of women at the high school level as a trend following the enactment of Title IX in 1972. Using archival data from a state high school d irectory, they analyzed the ratios of male and female athletic directors to male and female head coaches. Using chi square and ANOVA as the method of analysis, researchers fou nd that there was a significant effect in the gender (male/female) of the athleti c director and Title IX time periods. Results are significant evidence toward the notion that male athletic directors are biased to hiring male head coaches and homologous reproduction is a factor, which helps perpetuate hegemony in sports (Stangl & Kane, 1991). Considering that the number of male athletic directors far outweighed female athletic directors, this evidence of homologous reproduction suggests a clear disadvantage for women pursuing head coaching
52 positions. Finally Lovett and Lowry (1994) follo wed up Stangl and Kane (1991) by replicating the study but adding the gender of the high school principle as a variable in measuring homologous reproduction at the high school level. Again, homologous reproduction was shown to take place amongst male and f emale principles and athletic directors, in that they too hired individuals of the same gender (Lovett & Lowry, 1994). Overall, all three studies used homologous reproduction as a theoretical framework to explain the under representation of women as head c oaches in high school sports. Although women represent roughly half of the proportion of athletes, who are recognized as the viable pool of candidates for college coaching positions (Everhart & Chelladurai 1998), women still seemingly lack access to half of the coaching positions ed a mixed method approach to identify gender stereotypes, the influence of homologous reproduction impacting attitudes and perceptions of college basket ball players toward Hypothesis 1: There are Hypothesis 2: Those athletes who experience a high dive rsity proportion of leaders (i.e., a woman as a previous athletic leader ) will have favorable attitudes l. Likewise, t hose athletes who experience a low diversity proportion (i.e., have not had a woman as a p revious athle tic leader) will have un favorable attitudes toward women coaching ball. Methodology As suggested by Adcock and Collier (2001) triangulation adds to the validity and reliability of the data collected. Therefore, this stu dy has applied a mixed method
53 Participants Data was collected from a random sample 130 NCAA Division I college basketball players (41 male, 89 female). The majority of par ticipants were Caucasian/White ( n = 68; 51.9%), followed by African American/Black ( n = 52; 39.7%), Hispanic ( n n = 9; 6.9%). The majority (69.2%) of participants were between ages of 19 to 21 year. Instrumentation Attitude toward women (ATW). Four items have been developed to assess the were pilot tested with a sample ( n = 17) with a measures (Pallant, 2007). All items were scored on a 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Further reliability and validity measures (i.e., criterion and face validity) were assessed through use of a panel composed of 11 sport management doctoral students at a large southeastern university. Minor grammatical changes were made after panel review. Diversity proportion Participants were asked to complete items pertaining to the history of their curre nt and past athletic leaders. Items included in this section are: diversity proportion was computed. The
54 diversity proportion variable is the sum of the sex of previous athletic leaders (i.e., 1 = male, 2 = female) divided by the total numb er of previous athletic leaders (i.e., 6 previous athletic leaders). Once the ratio was computed, all participants who did not have a woman a s a previous or current leader was given a score of 1, every other participant who did have a woman a s a previous or current leader was given a diversity score of 2. The purpose of the diversity proportion is to compute a variable that can account for the amount of previous gender diversity each participant has had. This allow ed me to use this diversity proportion variable as an independent variable in This concept of opera tionalizing relational demography has been adapted from the works of Blau (1977) and Harrison and Klein (2007). Qualitative interview question Qualitative data was used to enrich the results of quantitative measures assessing attitude toward women coachin are assessed by use of open ended items (Walker et al., 2011 for similar methods). One open ended item will give participants an opportunity to openly express their perceptions of women Procedures stereo types, and the influence of gender of previous athletic leaders on attitude toward
55 a random sample of 950 NCAA Division I basketball players, both men and women. After f our follow up email reminders, 130 participants responded, for a response rate of 13.7%. The recruitment letter asked for their participation in a study assessing and took approximately 10 previous athletic leaders (i.e., head coach and athletic director). After all quantitative data was collected; seven randomly chosen participants were interviewed using the one qualitative item, in an effort to confirm the quantitative data. This method of post hoc interviewing of participants not only allowed for data confirmation, but also richer, mor e in depth analysis (Adcock & Collier, 2001). Analysis In analyzing the data the aim was to explore the influence of sex on attitudes. A two way ANOVA was applied to the data to test for the impact of sex of participants and gender diversity on the attitud basketball. Content analysis of the qualitative data was applied to identify thematic trends in the data (Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006). Results Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3 2 Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, outliers, and homogeneity of variance. There was no major violation of assumptions noted. Results of the two way ANOVA suggest significant effects for sex F (1, 123) = 20.71, p < 0.001, partial eta squared 0.17 (women: M = 4.70, SD = 1.40; men: M = 3.40, SD = 1.63) ; but not for
56 diversity proportion F (1, 123) = 2.34, p = 0.13; or the interaction effect of sex by diversity proportion F (1, 123) = 0.13, p = 0.72. In support of Hypothesis 1 there was a significant sex difference in the attitudes of college basketball players towards women ( M = 4.70, SD = 1.40) expressed a more han their male counterparts ( M = 3.40, SD = 1.63). Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported in that there was no significant diversity proportion effect, as well as no significant interaction effect between sex and diversity proportion Therefore, the data su ggest that gender of previous athletic leaders (i.e head coach, athletic director) did not in fluence the In analyzing the qualitative data, results suggest that gender stereotypes influence players did feel as though women were capable, they were very apprehensive as to whether women would g et hired. One fem ale player since women cannot dunk consistently, nor t the previous comments suggest that the stereotypical characteristic of women, as being athletically infer ior to men is a major barrier basketball. Overall, all seven athletes agreed that they would expect to see more
57 male player expressed similar sentiment in th players are not going to the NBA, women basketball coaches could bring a more lege basketball, but felt even went as far as athletes are not currently in the job market for coaching positions, five of the seven players stated interest in coaching once they graduate. Therefore, thes are relevant and provide insight into the culture of college basketball Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of college basketball players Walker and Bopp (2011) basketball. Walker and Bopp (2011) suggest that women perceive that Factors such as double standards (e.g., glass wall), exclusive social networks (i.e., old boys network), and organizational fit issues (i.e., respect and overcompensation for
58 being a woman) are all factors that college basketball. Study 1 of this dissertation built on the work of Walker and Bopp (2011) by examini suggest that the hyper mas basketball dramatically. Like the previous two studies, the goal of this research, was to add to the body of literature on women working in the male dominated sport workplace Results of this study suggest that although homologou s reproduction has (Kane & Stangl, 1991; Stangl & Kane, 1991), there was no clear relationship between players favoring those who were most like their previous leaders. The gender of previous athletic leaders did not influence the attitude of players toward women counte rparts. Although previous management research (Riordan & Shore, 1997) has suggested that relational demography (e.g., differences or similarities in demographic categories such as race and gender) or gender diversity has had little influence on the current culture, both the work of Walker and Bopp (2011) as well as the results of this study suggest otherwise. T his study suggests that there are gender differences in the
59 ollege basketball. Qualitative results suggest that traditional gender stereotypes may influence the attitudes of players towards women. Both men and women players stated physical and athletic differences between men and women as barriers to women coaching Nonetheless, similar to the results of the quantitative data, women basketball players who are coached by majority women than their male counterp arts. Although, some participants were optimistic that someday The results of this study are significant to organizational l iterature and literature that examines institutional gender dynamics because it provides progression in the study of contact theory research. To begin, the results of this study suggest that coming in contact with a female leader at some point in an athlet may seem to suggest that proportion does not matter, in that, regardless of how many women are head coaches or athletic directors, women will still be viewed negatively as women as previous leaders did not influence the attitude toward women as coaches in teams. The majority of athletes who had experienced a woman as a previous leader director. Considering, an overwhelming majority have never experienc ed a women as a
60 that position. Intergroup contact hypothesis suggests that the more a majority group and minority group interact amongst each other, the less prejudice a nd discrimination will take place (Allport, 1954). However, although the majority of female basketball players are in contact with women serving as their coaches, and men basketball players interact with women coaches in other sports, this interaction did not have an influence on their attitudes. Therefore, the results of this study suggest women must be seen as leaders in rts.
61 CHAPTER 4 MICRO LEVEL FACTORS Basketball? A Social Cognitive Career Theory Approach The enactment of Title IX in 1972 accomplished monumental strides in increasing the opport unities for women to participate in sport. However, little has been done to increase the representation of women as leaders in sport. Although, in most cases representation of women as participants in sport at the high school and collegiate level hovers so mewhere around 50% women as coaches at the same levels is a meager 27 28 % (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). This discrepancy in opportunities for female athletes to pursue jobs in an area where they have invested time and capital poses the dilemma of: what are female athletes to do with all the social and human capital that they have accumulated? Considering that the pool of candidates for sport related positions should likely be those who have accumulated capital in sports such as former athletes (Chelladurai & Everhart, 1998), why are these female athletes underrepresented in sports as a whole and significantly lacking representation in men sports? dominated sport workplace, very lit tle research has explored this phenomenon ( Walker, Bopp, & Sagas, 2011 ). Although women participate in sports at a rate almost equal to their male counterparts, women are (Kane & Stangl, 1991) and nearly non college basketball. Although men serve as
62 (41.7%), women are nearly non basketball, women are tokenized and marginalized to minute representation and the majority of that representation being at the assistant coach level (Zgonc, 2010). In response to these astonishing numbers, research that examines women in rts is becoming more prevalent. Walker, Bopp, and Sagas (2011) process. Scenarios were used in a quasi experimental study in which the hiring recommendation, capability, and job fit were assessed for potential candidates of both sexes. Participants were given a job description from a university with a pseudonym. They were then given a qualified male candidate, qualified female candidate, or an overqualified female candidate. As their names suggest, the qualified male candidate and the qualified female candidate both had identical qualification s The overqualified female candidate qualifications were significantly better than both the qualified male candidate and the qualified female candidate. Finally they were instructed to rate the candidate based upon items for each of the three variables (i.e., capability, job fit, and hiring recommendation) Results suggest that although women were scored relatively equal to men on capabil fit, women were rated significantly lower than men on the variable of hiring recommendation ( Walker et al., 2011 ). This means that although participants deem women just as qualified as men, they were less likel y to recommend hiring them, solely because they were a women. Walker and Bopp (2011) examined the perceptions of women who have coached depth interviews with participants, researchers
63 were able to identify themes, wh ich were then organiz ed into barriers, environmental perceptions. Results provide evidence that gendered opportunities, male exclusive social networks, and pressures to over compensate for being female were strongly influential on the intentions of women t o pursue careers in male dominated workplaces Walker & Bopp, 2011 ). Participants suggested that the reason why many women do that they simply did not want to deal with t he obstacles that come with coaching in Walker & Bopp, 2011 ). Overall, women were optimistic and However, it was broadly echoed t yet ready for women to coach men ( Walker & Bopp, 2011 ). Although sparse, there is literature that role of homologous reprod uction i n w omen being treated as tokens and marginalized in oaching positions (Walker et al., 2011 ), and perceptions of women coaching in Walker & Bopp, 2011 ). All previously mentioned studies examine barriers impeding the access of women to a study to date which explores the intentions basketball. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the intentions of college intentions of student athletes being influenced by racial inequities (Cunningham &
64 Singer, 2010), but few have attempted to examine gender differences in intentions and what factors may influence the gender differences. Through an application of social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1 994) this study examine d the influence of sex perception about, interest in, and behavioral Social Cognitive Career Theory Lent et al. (1994) social cognitive career theory was developed largely from efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals interact with environmental factors to about whether to engage in any behaviors (Bandura, constructs to build onto their concept that contextual factors have a bearing on decisions. These contextual factors in the sport literature have be en associated with barriers and supports (Cunningham, Bruening, Sartore, Sagas & Fink, 2005). Cunningham et al. (2005) found that these contextual factors (i.e., barriers and supports) have received minimal attention in social cognitive career theory resea rch, however were very significant to self efficacy, which is an imperative construct in the study of social cognitive career theory. Social cognitive career theory has been used in the sport management literature to explain the underrepresentation of wom en coaching in college sports (Cunningham, Doherty, & Gregg, 2007), as well as student athlete intentions to become head coaches (Cunningham & Singer, 2010). Social cognitive career theory suggests that three person cognitive variables interact with enviro nmental factors to predict behavior (i.e.,
65 will significantly add to the literature by applying the social cognitive career theory framework, to explore the intentions of college basketball players to coach college basketball. See F igure 4 1 for social cognitive career theory model. Self E fficacy Bandura (1986) defines self organize and execute courses of acti on required to attain designated types of efficacy has been examined extensively in the sport management literature such as, gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998), gender differences in desire to become a head coach (Cunningham et al., 2007; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003), and racial difference in the intentions of student athletes to enter the coaching profession (Cunningham & Singer, 2010). Everhart and Chelladurai (1 998) provide evidence that although not statistically significant ; the self efficacy of women was higher than that of men when asked about their capabilities as a coach. This finding is important to note because as a reviewer for Everhart and Chelladurai ( lower self discovery from Everhart and Chelladurai underrepresentation of women in the coaching ranks do not reside in 201). Therefore, Everhart and Chelladurai (1998) are suggesting that blaming women for not having the self efficacy or being confident enough to be a coach may not be valid By measuring self all, we are able to infer, from evidence produced in the data, gender difference s in se lf efficacy. Consequently, this is the hypothesis that was tested in relation to the self efficacy construct:
66 Hypothesis 1: Compared to men, women will have lower self e fficacy to coach Outcome E xpectation Outcome expectation is the belief about the outcome of taking part in a particular behavior (Lent et al., 1994). In the context of this study, outcome expectations are beliefs, both negative a nd positive, about what the expected outcome are from being a women of equal qualifications were rated lower for a hiring recommendation, the following hypothesis was developed: Hypothesis 2: Compared to men, women will perceive less positive outcome Choice G oals Choice goals can be defined as the intention an individual has to realistically partake in a behavior (Lent et al., 1994). Choice goals are seen as the closest variable to measuring actual behavior. This study would propose that since descriptive data (Zgonc, than men. Hypothesis 3: Compared to men, women will have lower intentions (i.e., choice Environmental F actors Environmental facto rs for the purpose of this study and in accordance with Lent, Brown, and Hackett (2000) are defined as supports and barriers. Previous research Walker & Bopp, 2011 ; Walker et al., 2011 ) have suggested that barriers (e.g., social networks) influence
67 et al. (2007) environmental factors concerning various behavioral choices and ultimately, the behavioral choices they d the influence of sex on environmental factors (e.g., barriers and supports). Hypothesis 4: Compare d to men, women will perceive there are more barriers assoc Hypothesis 5: Compared to men, women will perceive there is less support Vocational I nterest Vocational interest is the level of interest an individu al has in a particular behavior or to pursue a particular career (Lent et al., 1994; Cunningham et al., 2007). Theoretically in past research, vocational interest has influenced choice goals (Lent et al., 1994). Also in study 1 of this dissertation as well as previous research examining 2011), participants, both men and women have questioned the level of interest women gh vocational interest has in previous studies been examined as items under the variable choice goals, we will discuss the variable of interest separately. Hypothesis 6: Compared to men, women will express less vocational interest in basketball coach.
68 Methodology Participants Data was collected from a random sample 130 NCAA Division I college basketball players (41 male, 89 female). The majority of participants were Caucasian/White ( n = 68; 51.9%), preceded by African American/Black ( n = 52; 39.7%), Hispanic ( n n = 9; 6.9%). The majority (69.2%) of participants were between ages of 19 to 21 year. Measures Participants were given a questionnaire in which they provided demographic data and respond to items used t o measure outcome expectations, vocational interest, choice goals, barriers, and supports (Appendix A). A composite mean was used for each variable. The development of all measures were heavily influenced and at times adapted and adopted by the work of Len t et al. (1994), Cunningham et al. (2007), and Cunningham and Singer (2010). Self efficacy. Self efficacy was measured using nine items adapted and adopted from Everhart and Chelladurai (1998). In accordance with measures used by Cunningham and Singer (201 0) ( to measure self efficacy, participants read were then asked to rate the level of confidence they would have completing the activities listed. Sample items include point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence) to 7 (complete confidence). Outcome expectation. Outcome expectations were measured by adapting and (2005) and Cunningham and Singer (2010) nine item
69 measure ( point Likert type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Choice goals. Hagger, Chatzisarantis, and Biddle (2002), (2007), and Cunningham and Singer (2010) ( scale items were adapted and adopted and used to measure choice goals. The conceptualization of behavioral intention and choice goals were measured by asking participants the extent to which college basketball coach point Likert type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( str ongly agree ). Barriers. Barriers were measured using six items, which were developed based ( Walker & Bopp, 2011 ; Walker et al., 2011 ) and Cunningham and Singer (2010). An point Likert type sca le ranging from 1 (strongly disa gree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). SPSS was used to conduct reliability test in assessing ( ; Pallant, 2007). Further reliability and
70 validity measures were assessed through use of an expert panel of sport management doctoral students and pilot test ( n = 17). Supports. Supports were also measured by six items which were developed based on the previous work of Walker et al. (2011) Walker and Bopp (2011) and were rated on a 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). SPSS was used to conduct reliability test in assessing for measures (Pallant, 2007). Further reliability and validity measures were assessed through use of an expert panel of sport management doctoral students and pilot test ( n = 17). Vocational interest. Three items were developed to measure vocatio nal items were rated on a 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree alpha reliability ( for measures (Pallant, 2007). Further reliability and validity measures such as face and criterion validity were assessed through use of an expert panel of sport management doctoral students and pilot test ( n = 17) Procedures Online surveys were was sent via email to a random sample of 950 NCAA Division I basketball players, both
71 men and women. After four fol low up email reminders, 130 participants responded, for a response rate of 13.7%. A low response rate of 13.7% would suggest non response bias. Therefore, to examine the influence of non response bias, early responders were compared to late responders in a method used by Sagas et al. (2006). This method of examining the influence of non response bias is supported by previous literature that suggests there are similarities between late respondents and non respondents (e.g., Dooley & Linder, 2003). After comp aring these two groups, no differences were found amongst variables between early responders and late responders. The recruitment letter asked for their participation in a study assessing and exploring the attitude toward ketball. The survey took approximately 10 15 efficacy, outcome expectations, barriers, supports, interest, and choice goals (i.e., intentions) associated A nalysis A MANOVA was conducted to explore group difference between sex and social cognitive career theory variables. Hypotheses 1 to 5 predicted gender differences on social cognitive career theory variables and were tested by use of a one way MANOVA whil e hypothesis 6 was tested by means of a one way ANOVA Means and standard deviations were computed for all variables. Results Results from the MANOVA were used to identify whether there was variation by sex on the variables related to social cognitive car eer theory. All means and standard deviations are provided in Table 4 3 Preliminary assumption testing was performed to check for normality, outliers, linearity, homogeneity of variance, and multicollinearity.
72 There was no serious violation of assumptions observed. Results of the MANOVA F (5, 120) = 47.39, p < 0.001. Considering that significance was found in the multivariate analysis, it was warranted to examine the relationship of each dependent variable with the independent variable of sex. Also, because I am looking at a number of different analyses, it is suggested that the Bonferroni method be used to set a higher alpha level and reduce the chance of a Type 1 error (Pallant, 2007). Therefore, I divided the alpha level of 0.05 by the five individual analyses. The new alpha level set by the Bonferroni method was 0.01. Results of the individual between subjects effects were only considered significant at or below the 0.01 alpha level. T herefore, subsequent univariate analyses demonstrated significant effects for outcome expectations, F (1, 124) = 6.44, p = 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.05 (women: M = 4.19, SD = 1.35; men: M = 4.84, SD = 1.30); barriers, F (1, 124) = 213.77, p < 0.001, pa rtial eta squared = 0.63 (women: M = 5.76, SD = 1.09; men: M = 2.35, SD = 1.46) ; and choice goals, F (1, 124) = 17.67, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.13 (women: M = 2.73, SD = 1.67; men: M = 4.09, SD = 1.76) Results from the one way ANOVA demonstrat e a significant sex difference in interest, F (1, 127) = 21.32, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.14 (women: M = 3.02, SD = 1.89; men: M = 4.67, SD = 1.86). Hypothesis 1 was not supported considering there was not a significant sex difference in self effi cacy. However, hypothesis 2 was supported in that women (M = 4.19, SD = 1.35) did perceive there to be less positive outcomes expectations related to Hypothesis 3 was su pported in that women (M = 2.73, SD = 1.67) did express fewer
73 1.76). In support of hypothesis 4 women (M = 5.76, SD = 1.09) did perceive there to be more barriers to thei (M = 2.35, SD = 1.46). There was no significant sex difference in perceived support to hypothesis 6 was sup ported in that women (M = 3.02, SD = 1.89) expressed less = 1.86). Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the perception, interest, and intentions of coll suggest that although women and men may not differ in self efficacy, men have higher negative outcome expectations than men, who expressed more positive outcome contrary to the literature, which suggest that women traditionally have lower self efficacy than their male cou nterparts in regards to coaching (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007). These results on self efficacy is consistent with Walker et al. (2011), Walker and Bopp (2011), study 1, and study 2 results, which suggest that women are just as capable are gatekeepers to positions
74 college basketball is the presence of barriers as a basketball, women perceived there t o be more barriers to their pursuit in the profession the fact that these results ar e in contrast to Cunningham et al. (2007) findings, which suggest that there is no t a significant sex difference in perceived barriers to coach examining women coachin such a social norms or organizational barriers such as the old boys network, basketball a male exclusive institution which remains impermeable by women. In the previous two studies of this dissertation, participants questioned whether ge basketball is significantly lower than their male counterparts. However, considering the strong presence of barriers and the negative outcome expectations that women express, the work of Lent et al. (1994) would suggest that women would also have low in terest and intentions in coaching 2007). Overall these results add significantly to the resea rch by examining sex
75 The results of this study suggest more work needs to be done examining the construct of barriers. In study one, t he barriers seemed to be obvious, in that they were institutional and societal barriers. In study two negative attitudes seemed to be a barrier to women, which were influenced by stereotypes. However, in this study, although results suggest barriers had th e most influence on intentions to coach, it is unclear exactly what these barriers are and how they are materialized by women pursuing
76 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Most Relevant Stakeholders: Coaches and Players The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate factors that influence the lack comparatively equivalent proportion of athlete s at the NCAA collegiate level, men s place in American sports as arguable techniques. Therefore, the transition for men to coach women seamless. However, women and men alike perceive there to be numerous barriers to literature this phenomenon, which is the lack of women coaching in m basketball has been investigated with methods such as quasi experimental research (Walker et al., 2011) and semi structured interviews (Walker and Bopp, 2011). Therefore, this dissertation chose to implement both quantitative and qualitative m ethods in investigating this phenomenon. Overall findings suggest that both women and men alike believe that although women may be just as capable in ability to coach in Study 1 of this dissertation used semi structured interviews to examine the
77 ollege basketball, but have experienced working with a hyper masculine institution in which masculine hegemony and sociocultural norms work together in perpetuating a ma le exclusive organization. Although these men to make the necessary cultural changes in their organization to be more inclusive to women. Although most coaches felt that the players would not react differently to a a positive attitude toward women in this non traditional role. Participants also These two uncertainties by the coaches in study 1 led to study 2 and study 3, which investigated the attitudes of college basketbal college basketball. Results suggest that although as a whole, players attitudes were than their male counterparts. These results support study 1 of this dissertation in that culturally accep, thereby their attitude toward women coaching is negative. Also, the
78 justification would explain their slightly negative attitude toward women coaching in basketball players toward masculine or women. Men would need to accept and see a need to welcome women into their social networks and culture and women would need to express interest and intentions in order for these and men are comparably equivalent in self efficacy and supports, women perceive less favor college basketball were also significantly lower than their male counterparts. At this point i n the dissertation, these results are not surprising. Comparable to other studies using Lent et al. (1994) social cognitive career theory, negative outcome expectations, and increased barriers are highly correlated with lower vocational interest and intent ions (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007 ). However, women being nearly equivalent on self efficacy and supports, but expressing significantly lower intentions col lege basketball. Certainly more research needs to be done investigating the relationship of these variables in relation to gender in male dominated workplaces. Nonetheless, study 3 provides evidence that supports of both study 1, study 2, Walker
79 and Bopp ( 2011) and Walker et al., (2011). Coaches and players believe that women basketball. However, the perception of barriers, negative attitudes of men, coupled with a lack of int dominated, male exclusive, hyper masculine institution. Contributions to Literature and Implications The major contribution of this research to literature is that the multilevel perspective provided evidence of the unique embedded nature of this phenomenon. By examining this phenomenon through a multilevel lens, results emerged which suggest other, but that that the relationships may also be cyclical. For instance, Study 1 provided evidence of institutional beliefs and hegemonic masculinity, which are said to exist in the macro level perpetuating stereotypes in the meso level and influencing intentions in the micro level. This depicts the embedded nature of the factors in each level of the multilevel model. However, although results suggest the embedded nature of the factors, they are also cyclical. Although hegemonic masculinity, negative attitudes and stereo wa in fluence their hiring decisions in that, they know institutional norms are for men to hire
80 ts. Therefore, stereotypes serve as tools used by society to justify the current institutional 2 and Figure 4 3 are visual depictions of the embedded and cyclical nature of this multileve l model and its unique contribution to the literature. Another significance of this study is that it contributes to the sparse body of literature examining women working in the male dominated sport workplace. Little research has examined women coaching in dissertation not only investigates the perceptions of male coaches, but also men and Bopp (2011) and Walker et al. (2011) by add ing the perceptions of a more complete view from the majority of the stakeholders in college basketball. By applying a multilevel framework, I was able to examine both qualitative and quantitative methods to examining this phenomenon. As a result, both data that may be generalizable to broader scopes of society, as well as data that is unique to this sample and institution were produced from this research The relationship of the social cognitive career theory variables need to be tested in other environments in which participants express high self efficacy and support, but outcome expectations, intentions and interest remain low. This result adds signific antly to the body of literature on social cognitive career theory, in that these results contradict previous sport studies using soci al cognitive career theory ( Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007 ).
81 Finally, this research contributes to insti tutional theories. As suggested in study 1 institutional theories such as system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and social dominance theory (Sidanius, Levin, Frederico, & Pratto, 2001) suggest that institutional norms are established over the s organizational justifications for the way said organization operates. Regardless of how unfair the norms may be, the institution finds a way to justify their norms and rituals. As stated before, although women men are aware that a double standard exists and women have unequal opportunities etball, they too justify this norm by basketball. Regardless of how men and women coaches may justify this organizational ge basketball, the presence of this phenomenon has influence on societal norms and progression. Coakley (2009) has posed the question of whether society mirrors sport or sport mirrors society. Regardless of your opinion, with the likes of figures such as J ackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe, it would be nave to not understand the influence sport has on social justice and civil rights movements in this country and globally. Therefore, this research is significant in exposing an institution of inequity that many have come to accept. Although, I have only discussed theoretical contributions, this research has implications related to practitioners. To begin, results from all three studies suggest that believe that women
82 women. Coaching associations and the NCAA could help circumvent gender bias in basketball coaches. Intergroup contact hypothesis suggest that under controlled circumstances, where women and men can work together on equal status, toward a common goal, cooperative circumstances, and under the guidance and support of the NCAA, then many norms which discriminate or are prejudice against women, are lessened over time (Allport, 1954). Therefore, giving men and women coaches an environment where they can socialize and interact at a NCAA sanctioned event, would be beneficial t o breaking down stereotypes and institutional norms that disadvantage different cities. If the NCAA held these national tournaments in the same city, then women and men basketball coaches would have more opportunities to network and socialize together. Networking and socializing in a professional environment may add to the acceptance of women and men working together as leaders in sport. Limitations and Future Research Although results of this study are significant and make several contributions to literature, there are limitations. First, my personal bias cannot be accounted for or removed in the developing of qualitative items, as well as collecting and analyzing data. Although I did attempt to bracket my opinions and personal biases, it would be irresponsible to believe that the qualitative research in this study was completely objective and free o f bias. My experience as a NCAA Division I basketball player, coach, and fan may make me an expert, but also may bias my interpretation. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged. Second, only NCAA Division I athletes and coaches were sampled. With the exception of the Olympic Games, NCAA Division I is
83 the most competitive amateur athletic league in America. Therefore, examining less competitive leagues, in which players and coaches may see more women in non traditional roles, may offer a different understanding into this phenomenon. Finally, although the sample sizes used in this d issertation met minimal requirements necessary for sample size assumptions, a larger and more inclusive sample size certainly would add to the notion of generalizing results. Future research should apply social cognitive career theory to other male dominat ed sport workplaces. The results of this study in which women expressed high self efficacy and support, but low intentions, suggest barriers should be tested as a moderator on the effect of self efficacy on outcome expectations, intentions, and interest i n similar settings. Also, comparing structural models on social cognitive career theory by sex could add insight to gender differences. The moderating effects of variables such as personality, career goal orientation, athletic achievement, and family struc ture (e.g., having a male figure in the home) may also add interesting discussion to this topic. In examining intentions further, it may be worthwhile for future research to explore which variables amongst the situational, societal/environmental, personal, and teams. Interviewing athletic directors could prove instrumental in furthering the research study 1 expressed that if they did hire a woman as an assistant coach and had a losing season, their athletic director may believe they were not taking their job seriously due to them hiring a candidate outside of the organizational norms. Interviewing at hletic directors
84 may lend insight into the amount of support coaches receive in hiring women into the
85 APPENDIX : TABLES, FIGURES AN D INSTRUMENTS Figure A 1. Social Cognitive Career Theory Model. Figure A 2. Pictorial depiction of the multilevel perspective
86 Figure A 3. Variables tested for their influence in the underrepresentation of women in
87 Table A 1. Study 1 Participant Demographic Description Participant Pseudonym Ag e Conference Race/Ethnicity Experience #1 Matthew 27 SEC White/Caucasian 5 years #2 Jake 29 SEC White/Caucasian 4 years #3 Bob 61 SEC Black/African American 35 years #4 Ricky 29 Atlantic 10 White/Caucasian 9 years #5 James 46 Big 12 White/Caucasian 24 years #6 Garth 25 Atlantic Sun White/Caucasian 3 years #7 Harold 27 Atlantic Sun White/Caucasian 2 years #8 Kevin 37 Pac 10 Black/African American 7 years
88 Table A 2 Results from Study 2 Diversity proportion = 1 Diversity proportion = 2 Men Women Overall Men Women Total Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD ATW 3.51 1.63 4.94 1.30 4.43 4.06 3.18 1.66 4.39 1.49 4.07 1.62 basketball (ATW).
89 T able A 3 Results from Study 3. Men Women Overall Variable M SD M SD M SD Self efficacy 5.83 0.61 5.74 0.92 5.77 0.83 Outcome expectations 4.84 1.30 4.19 1.35 4.40 1.36 Barrier 2.35 1.46 5.76 1.09 4.65 2.01 Supports 3.94 1.58 3.38 1.64 3.56 1.63 Cho ice goals 4.09 1.76 2.73 1.67 3.17 1.81 Interest 4.67 1.86 3.02 1.89 3.55 2.03 Means and Standard Deviations for Social Cognitive Career Theory Variables by Sex of Player.
90 S TUDY 1: INSTRUMENT Interview Guide Title: Hegemonic masculinity and the inst basketball: What do men think? Research Purpose: Research Questions: Wha t are male collegiate coaches and players attitudes toward basketball? Interview Questions : 1. Describe your perception of the role of women in collegiate sports? a. PROBES: Do women have a dominate role? Passive role? Active role? 2. collegiate basketball. a. PROBES: Is there a lack of interest by women? Lack of social basketball different sports? If so, how? 3. affect a coaching staff? Players? a. PROBES: Positive outcomes? Negative outcomes? 4. basketball? If so, name and describe some barriers to women that inhibit them iate basketball. If not, how would you explain the 5. Describe the presence or non presence of discrepancies, inequalities, basketba ll. (Types of discrimination: access, occupational, treatment, implicit/explicit) of women in collegiate basketball? a. collegiate basketball?
91 6. Would you ever consider hiring or coaching with a basketball coach? Why or why not? Are their advantages/ disadvantages to they? 7. a. P basketball coach? If so, what is your perception of your/their experiences in general? 8. collegiate basketball? a. collegiate basketball? Are women allowed to participate in practices, summer skill camps, team camps, internships? 9. Do you think there will collegiate basketball? Why or why not? a. PROBES: Disadvantages? Access discrimination? 10. What is the cause for the double standard in collegiate basketball today (women having less/non ollege basketball coaching positions, basketball)? 11. Do you believe that this phenomenon is a problem? If so, describe why? If not, describe why not? Is there anything that you think could be done to help promote collegiate basketball? If so, what? If not, why? Do you have anything else you would like to add to this conversation? Is there any other topic area that you woul d like to discuss?
92 Recruitment Letter Hello, The purpose of this email is to request your participation in my research study, which college basketball. My name is Nefert iti Walker and I am a Ph.D. candidate in the department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management at the University of Florida. I work under the advising of Dr. Michael Sagas, Chair of the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management. My resear ch interest is in women working in male dominated sport workplaces and organizations. More specifically and at the heart of this research is to As a former collegiate basketball player and a profe ssional basketball prospect, the concentration of my interest lies in basketball. Having been deeply entrenched in basketball at all levels for the past 15 years, I have seen the best and worst of the sport I cherish. Although there are many men coaching i figure to many of my teammates. This being said, I hav e an added interest in Here are some statistics from the 2007 08 NCAA Race and Gender Demographics Report: sketball 57.4% of the head coaches were women; 42.5% were men. 0% of the head coaches were women; 100% were men. 65.8% of the assista nt coaches were women; 34.2% were men. 0.1% of assistant coaches were women; 99.9% were men. The implications of this research is to gain insight into gender dynamics in collegiate basketball specifically, and sports in gener al. Your participation will include a 30 minute interview at the location of your choice or by phone. There is the possibility of a short follow up interview, but this is highly doubted. Your identity will be anonymous to anyone except the researchers and you will be known exclusively by use of pseudonyms.
93 The subject area of the questions will be as follows: your perception of women coaching to add to the research. I chose you to participate in this research because I believe that the voice of those most intimately connected to this topic area needs to be heard. I believe that you are most knowledgeable in the content of my research and your expertise is needed to ad d to the literature and knowledge of this phenomenon. Your time and contribution is not only needed for the study of this topic, but appreciated and valued. Please know that your voice is important to providing knowledgeable research on this topic. If you are willing to be a participant, please respond to this email at your earliest convenience for more information. Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you very soon!
94 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Hegemonic masculinity and the ins collegiate basketball: What do men think? Please read this content document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of this research study: To describe through the perceptions of male colleg basketball. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer and discuss 11interview questions. The interview will be audio recorded and the recording will be confidentially archived. You may also be asked to respond via email to a list of 5 11 open ended questions. Time required: 20 60 minutes. Risks and benefits: No more than minimal risk. There is no direct benefit to the participant in this research. Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in the study. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The names of the participants will not be used in any research reports or presentations. Volun tary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequences. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Nefertiti Walker Dr. Michael Sagas FLG Room 300 FLG Room 300 PO Box 118208 PO Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 32611 Gainesville, FL 32611 nefertitiwalk firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 352 392 4042 x1392 352 392 4042 x1415 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 Tel. 352 392 0433
95 I have read the procedure outlined above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the study and have received a copy of this description. If you agree to participate in this research study and agree to the terms above, please respond to this email to schedule an interview appointment, as a confirmation of your consent.
96 STUDY 2: INSTRUMENT Study 2: Qualitative Items 1. Study 3: Qualitative Questions ( For Future Studies ) 1. Have you ever considered pursuing a college coaching career following a. Career goal orientation can be used as a moderator for all variables used in this study. 2. college basketball coach? 3. how do you plan to overcome those barriers? 4. How muc h discrimination do you think you would encounter in trying to be a 5. What are some of the outcomes you would expect if you were to become a
97 STUDY 2 AND 3: QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENT Table 1 would perform. Please rate the level of confidence you have that you could complete these tasks. No Complete Confidence Confidence 1. Resist the interference by parents, alumni, and other groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Accurately assess t he abilities of your players. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Change coaching strategies if they did not work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Select the players best suited for your strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Identify individuals and groups who can help your program or team. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Be self assured in dealing with problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Modify your strategies according to the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Determine your coaching strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Make intelligent coaching choices. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
98 Table 2 Please respond to the following items concerned with the outcomes you might expect Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree ege basketball coach will mean high status. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I would have a meaningful career if I were t o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I would earn approval from others if I became a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. People close to me think I should become a men college basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I would have the social support needed to become 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be very satisfying to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. My career satisfaction would be high if I became a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 importan t for me to feel complete as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
99 Table 3 Please respond to the following items concerned with the factors that might influence Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. People of my gender have a hard time obtaining a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. It would be difficult for society to accept peo ple basketball coaching position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball coaching position because of my gender. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Gender discrimination would make it hard for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 basketball coach because there are so few positions available. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I have the experience needed to become a college llege basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I have sufficient contacts to help me become a basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I have a large enough network of contacts to make possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I feel I know enough people in the field to secure a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
100 Table 4 college basketball college coach. Strongly Strongl y Disagree Agree something that really interests me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 basketball coach in the past. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table 5 college ba sketball college coach. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree coach following graduation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ollege basketball coaching sometime during my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 basketball coach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
101 Table 6 Please respond to the following items concerning your attitude towards women Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree basketball. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 college basketball. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 career for women. 4. Women should not have access to coaching s college basketball. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table 7 Please tell us the sex of your previous coaches and athletic directors. Male Female 1. Sex of the current asketball head coach at your college or university. 1 2 2. Sex of the current coach at your college or university. 3. Sex of the current athletic director at your college or university 1 2 1 2 4. Sex of the high school at your previous high school or prep school. 5. Sex of the high school men's basketball coach at your previous hi gh school or prep school. 1 2 1 2 1 2 6. Sex of the high school athletic director at your previous high school or prep school.
102 Demographics: Please tell us a bit about yourself Sport: Sex: Male _____ Female _____ Race: African American _____ Asian _____ Caucasian _____ Hispanic _____ Native American _____ Other ____ Age: _____ years Major: ___________________________________________________________ Sex of Head Coach: Male _____ Female _____ Race of Head Coach: African American _____ Asian _____ Caucasian _____ Hispanic _____ Native American _____ Oth er _____ Sex of Position Coach: Male _____ Female _____ Race of Position Coach: African American _____ Asian _____ Caucasian _____ Hispanic _____ Native American _____ Other _____ Thank you for your participation!!
103 LIST OF REFERENCES Ac osta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2010). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, thirty one year update 1977 2010. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standar d for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95 (3), 529 546. Allport G W. ( 1954 ). The nature of p rejudi ce. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley ge nder segregation, and sport. Sociological Forum, 23 (2), 257 280. Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of sport. Sport Management Review, 12 3 14. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations for thought and action: A soc ial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baumgartner, T. A., & Hensley, L.D. (2006). Conducting and reading research and health and human performance. Boston: McGraw Hill. the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society, 10 (2), 120 132. athleti c administration positions. Sex Roles, 61 416 426. Chafetz, J. (1990). Gender equity: An integrated theory of stability and change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Co nnell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculi nity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19 (6), 829 859. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and p erspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
104 Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58 136 145. Cunningham, G. B. (2010). Understanding the underrepresentation of African Ame rican coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review, 13 395 406. Cunningham, G. B., Bruening, J., Sartore, M. L., Sagas, M., & Fink, J. S. (2005). The application of social cognitive career theory to sport and leisure choices. Journal of Care er Development, 32 122 138. Cunningham, G. B. & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29 (2), 148 163. Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organization s: Introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 58 3 9. Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of Sex Roles 56, 365 372. Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2003). Coaching self efficacy, desire to become an head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences International Journal of Sport Psychology, 3 4 125 137. Student athletes intentions to enter the coaching profession. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (7), 1708 1727. Dixon, M. A., & Cunningham, G. B. (20 06). Multi level analysis in sport management: Conceptual issues and review of aggregation techniques. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10 (2), 85 107. Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22 (5), 64 3 657. Dooley, L. M., & Linder, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 74 99 110. Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59 815 846. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31 1 12. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Revi ew, 109 573 598.
105 Embry, A., Padgett, M. Y., & Caldwell, C. B. (2008). Can leaders step outside the box? An examination of leadership and gender role stereotypes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15 30 45. Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission. (2009). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2009). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2008. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from htt p://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2008/#I Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69 188 200. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks New York: International Publishers. Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role rceptions regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1 26 45. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A meta analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in p hysical activity: Predictive validity and contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24 3 32. separation, variety, or disparity in or ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 1228. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent Journal of Social Issues, 57 657 674. Hoard, W. B. (1973). Anthology : Quotations and Sayings of People of Color San Francisco: R and E Research Associates. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justificati on. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 498 509. Kane, M. J., & Stangl, J. M. (1991). Employment patterns of female coaches in athletics: Tokenism and marginalization as reflections of occupational sex segregation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15 21 41.
106 Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women in the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kim, K., Sagas, M., & Walker, N. A. (2011). Replacing athleticism with sexuality: Athlete models in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues. International J ournal of Sport Communication, 4 (1 or 2). Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3 90). San Francisco: Jossey Bas. Lee, I., & Koro Ljungberg, M. (2007). A phenomenological study of Korean students' acculturation in middle schools in the USA. Jou rnal of Research in International Education, 6 95 117. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 79 122. Lent, R W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choices: A social cognitive career analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 458 465. Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). Good old boys and good old girls clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8 27 35. multifactorial gender identity. North American Journal of Psychology, 9 211 228. McCabe, C. (2008). Gender effects on spec Social Behavior and Personality, 36 347 358. McCabe, C., Ingram, R., & Dato on, M. C. (2006). The business of ethics and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 64 101 116. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological rese arch methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sociology of sport Journal, 27 (1), 89 104. Oak le y, J. G. (2000). Gender based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarci ty of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27 321 334. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3 rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
1 07 Rhode, D. L. & Walker, C. J. (2008). Gender equity in college athletics: Women coaches as a case study. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 4, 1 50. Riordan, C. M. & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demo graphy within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (3), 342 358. differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic administrators. Se x Roles, 50 411 421. Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2005). Racial differences in the career success of assistant football coaches: The role of discrimination, human capital, and social capital. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 773 797. Sagas, M. Cunningham, G.B., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and female assistant coaches: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Sex Roles, 54 695 705. Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Teed, K. (2006). An examination of homologous Sex Roles 55, 503 510. Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining the under representation of women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symboli c interactionist perspective. Quest, 59 244 265. Sartore, M.L., & Sagas, M. (2007). A trend analysis of the proportion of women in college coaching. International Journal of Sport Management, 8 226 244. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J.T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307 331). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatorypower for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8 47 60. Staurowsky, E. J. (1990). Women coaching male athletes. In M. A. Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 163 170). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Swaton, B. (2010). Girls can play too: Has the lack of female leadership in NCAA athletics be come an afterthought? Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 20 1 47.
108 Theberge, N. (1993). The construction of gender in sport: Women, coaching, and the naturalization of difference. Social Problems, 40 (3), 301 313. Walker, N. A. & Bopp, T. ( 2011 ). The underrepresentation of women in the male dominated sport workplace: Perspectives of female coaches Journal of Workplace Rights 15 (1), 47 64. Walker, N. A., Bopp, T., & Sagas, M. ( 2011 ). Gender bias in the perception of women as collegiate men Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 5 (2), 157 176. Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male dominance in interscholastic athletics: A case Sex Roles, 58 768 775. Whisenant, W A., Pedersen, P. M., & Obenour, B. L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 47 485 491. Zgonc, E. (2010). 1999 2000 2008 2009 NCAA student athlete ethnicity report. Indianapo lis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.
109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nefertiti Walker is a former NCAA Division I basketball player who began her athletic career in 2001 at Georgia Tech, before transferring to Stetson University in 2003 where she completed her athletic career in 2006 At Stetson University she received her B.A. in sport management in 2005 and completed her M B A in business administration in 2006, while serving as an assistant coach for Stetson University fter completing her M B A at Stetson University, she taught Coaching Theory while also coaching and training elite basketball players. In 2008, she began her doctoral studies at the University of Florida. At the University of Florida she has taught Sport a nd Society, Administration in Sport and Physical Activity, as well as recorded several lectures for the online Introduction to Sport Management course. She has advised and mentored her students to internships and jobs with the Unive rsity Athletic Association Gainesville YMCA, and professional organizations such as the PGA. She completed her Ph.D. and graduated from the University of Florida August 2011.